METHODS AND RESULTS. The result of Fedi ner's work was to modify the assertions of Zeising and other theorists. A decided prefer ence for the proportion of the Golden Section was found with certain figures, particularly the rectangle. For the simple sectioning of a line, on the other hand, preference was shown for the division into halves and thirds. Fechner is justly called the founder of experimental [esthet ics. He laid out the field. distinguished the direct and the associative factors. gave the meth ods, and applied them suceessfully. There are three chief methods now used in experimental :esthetics: (1 ) choice, (2) construction, and (3) use. In the method of choice, series of simple figures, tones, or colors are presented to the observer, who selects the one most pleasing in its own right. The objects may he given in pairs (method of paired comparisons). or in a progressive series (serial method). or promis cuously. according to the material In the method of construction the individual is given elements, e.g.. two narrow strips of eardhoavd, and is asked to make from them the most pleas ing figure (Cross) that he can. The method of use or application consists in collecting the dimensions of simple. common objects, as visit ing or playing cards, envelopes, vases, newspa pers, books, windows, facades, in order to discover the usual or most common proportions. The value of the last-named method rests on the supposition that the proportions most used are the most agreeable. This is true only in part; fitness, cost, use to which an object is put, and custom play a large part; for these reasons the method requires caution. The second method suffers from rather narrow limitations. Both it and the third, however, are of value as checks upon the method of choice, which is the most trustworthy and has been most successfully employed.
The methods named have been used chiefly with spatial forms: rectangles, crosses, lines, angles, circles, ellipses, and triangles. They have succeeded best with the simpler figures. Feehner's early results have been. for the most part, confirmed. We know now that certain divis ions and dimensions are [esthetically pleasing for their own sake; that is, with no specific asso ciation attaching to them. The most agreeable are expressed by the ratio 1:1 and (approxi mately) 3:5, the last-named ratio standing near the relation for the Golden Section given above.
For example, the grand average from twenty three series in which various forms (lines, angles, crosses, and ellipses) were used, with a number of observers, gave as the most pleasing ratio 1:1.635, with an extremely low fluctuation for the different series. We conclude, then, that the most satisfying combinations are those in the parts are alike and those in which they are moderately similar. One is tempted to point to the mathematieaI relation of the golden section as an explanation of the aesthetic enjoyment found in proportion. But the relation is in itself no explanation, and, even if it were, the deviations from it which many individuals show would invalidate it. A recent explanation of the [esthetie feelings connected with space-forms points out that man involuntarily invests spatial objects with the activities—strains, resistings, tensions—which he himself feels in his own body. According as an object—a pillar, a statue, or a block of stone—gives evidence that it is capable or incapable of holding its own, support ing its load, and maintaining its own integrity does it awaken a feeling of satisfaction or dis satisfaction in the observer. This tendency shows itself, it is argued, even where the object is reduced to a mere outline. The argument gains part of its weight from the fact that it also gives a reason for a host of illusions con nected with our perception of spatial relations. A true mathematical square is not seen as a at all, but as a rectangle whose height is greater than its breadth : a bisected vertical line looks longer above the point of division than and so on. The allowance made for these illusions is probably the most impor tant advance in method since the days of Fech ner. It is to be noted that the explanation, which we may call a dynamic one, brings in the assoeiational factor. Yet this is not a fatal objection, for the associations are generic, so to speak, and thus constant, within limits, for all individuals. The theory must, however, share honors with a psychophysieal one, which accounts for the elementary [esthetic feelings in terms of the simplicity and eom plexity of psyehophysieal processes underlying them. It is probable, that is, that the facility with which certain proportions are cognized affects directly the excitability of the nervous system in such a way as io produce pleasure.